Editorial: Terror alerts shouldn't become political tools

Tuesday

Aug 25, 2009 at 12:01 AMAug 25, 2009 at 10:40 AM

Did the 2004 presidential election narrowly avoid being manipulated by terror threats just days before Americans went to the polls? That's the claim made by Tom Ridge, the first head of the Department of Homeland Security, in a book coming out next Tuesday in which he says he was pressured by then-Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and former Attorney General John Ashcroft to raise the national terror alert level at the end of October, 2004, to help President Bush win re-election.

Did the 2004 presidential election narrowly avoid being manipulated by terror threats just days before Americans went to the polls?

That's the claim made by Tom Ridge, the first head of the Department of Homeland Security, in a book coming out next Tuesday in which he says he was pressured by then-Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and former Attorney General John Ashcroft to raise the national terror alert level at the end of October, 2004, to help President Bush win re-election. The alleged arm-twisting came while Cabinet members and others on the homeland security team were trying to decide what to do about a new videotape of threats issued by Osama bin Laden.

Ridge details a tense meeting in which he says the duo aggressively urged him to support a change to "code level orange" to such an extent that he wondered, "Is this about security or politics?" Spokesmen for Rumsfeld, Ashcroft and former homeland security adviser Frances Townsend deny the claims, providing different recollections of what they concede was a lively meeting at which there was ultimately no agreement - and thus no change in the terror alert.

Rumsfeld offers a caveat, though, that he thought the public ought to know about an increase in specific threats, citing as an example the line from bin Laden's tape that "the streets of America will run red with blood." That argument might gain more traction were lines like that not the kind of boilerplate language found in most al-Qaida videos. The terror leader's language referenced no specifics.

In any case, Ridge writes that he now "regrets" helping to convey the message that "only the Republican incumbent" could keep Americans safe so close to an election, an accusation he publicly denied at the time. While the Bush administration had something of a reputation for politicizing policy issues to unprecedented levels, if this occurred the way Ridge says it did, it borders on inexcusably inappropriate.

This discussion comes at a time when the Homeland Security department is weighing whether or not to scrap the entire color-coded alert system in favor of a new method of keeping people apprised of threats. A decision on that is expected next month. Whatever solution is reached will be imperfect, but at the very least it should take into account these claims and side with facts over fear when warning people about legitimate possible attacks. It is a slam dunk that such warnings should be untainted by political considerations.

Arguably the often-mocked status quo does little to guide the public at large anyway. Since Sept. 11, 2001, the knowledge that another terror attack could occur on these shores has been ever-present. Does the alertness of some vague "code level yellow" vary greatly from that of "code level orange" where most Americans are concerned? Does moving up the color chart really impact vigilance levels?

Changing this system need not compromise security. As Ridge himself said five years ago: "We don't have to go to (code level) orange to take action in response either to these tapes or just general action to improve security around the country." In other words: Just the facts, ma'am, no crayons necessary.